Building Bridges

Ever since I was a child, I have always considered the Christmas season as a time of the year during which we ought to display our best qualities as human beings. Throughout the year, many people often end up burying themselves in their own personal matters without paying much attention to the community or the world they live in. Furthermore, there is little doubt that ignorance, misunderstandings, and various prejudices frequently lead to a degree of hostility or indifference when it comes to several relationships. As an imperfect human being, I am not immune from making mistakes, but the Christmas season serves as a reminder that I could do more for the community I live in. That I could start talking to a person once again in order to replace anger or ignorance with empathy and care or friendship.


Last Friday, I was contacted by one of my North Korean friends. Following the recent loss of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) much-admired Leader - Kim Jong Il - my friend invited me to meet him and some other friends to express our condolences formally. I did not hesitate. He picked me up from Ta' Xbiex and we went to an apartment in Qawra. Inside this barely-furnished apartment, there was a room with a portrait of Kim Jong Il hanging on the wall. Below the portrait, there were some beautiful flowers and wreaths displaying messages in Korean. Two young men stood guard on each side. A small video camera was recording the whole event. After bowing in front of the portrait (the Korean way of showing respect), I signed the visitor's book. We then went to have dinner at a restaurant in Ta' Xbiex.


Although I had already witnessed the generosity of my North Korean friends over the past year or so, I was impressed when they told me that they wanted to pay for my dinner. Even though they were not drinking any alcohol due to the mourning period, they insisted on buying a small bottle of wine for me. One of my friends even told me to order anything I wanted since they wanted to see me happy. They even gave me a number of gifts (see the photo above). Many of the gifts are DVDs from the DPRK. One of them is a movie (The Kites Flying in the Sky) with English subtitles. Such items are extremely hard to find outside the DPRK and I was so grateful for the fact that they showered me with such nice things!


During the few hours that we spent together, we talked about many topics. We exchanged our views on religion, the huge food portions served in many restaurants in Malta, illegal immigration, and other issues.


As I had dinner with my friends from the DPRK, I thought about all the negative things that are said about the country and its people. I thought about all the hatred that is directed against the DPRK. And I wondered about how much better this world would be if more people replaced their ignorance and hatred with knowledge and care.


On this Christmas Day, I encourage people all over the world to look at each other as part of a single family. Although each person and each government has their flaws, let us focus our energies on making positive differences. Let us sow peace and unity rather than hatred and division. Let us engage in building bridges rather than burning them!


Merry Christmas to All!

The Church

The Human Family

Whenever the word "Church" is used, many people tend to associate it with a particular building or with a specific organisation. As far as buildings are concerned, there are several beautiful churches around the world. When it comes to organisations, there are also numerous ones such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and so on. Although the term "Church" could certainly refer to an architectural wonder or to a group of people, I prefer to go beyond these definitions.

To me, the Church consists of ALL human beings. Put differently, I consider the Church to be made up of the huge human family that includes all the people who have ever lived, are presently living, and even future generations. And yes...the human family or the Church is not limited to a group of individuals who gather in the same building every Sunday or who recite a particular set of prayers; prison inmates, athiests, agnostics, alcoholics, and suicide bombers, to mention just a few groups of people, are also members of the Church.


Us Versus Them

In view of the definition given above, a person cannot join or leave the human family. Regardless of what one says or does, they will always remain a member of such a family. Seen this way, the Church cannot be regarded as, say, a football club or a political party.

Throughout history, one could observe a tendency to carve the human species up into various groups. Each group would typically have a number of rules. The failure to comply with some or all of the latter would normally result in the suspension or even expulsion of the person who strays. In several organisations, the rules are laid down by a handful of individuals who are conditioned by the socioeconomic circumstances they live in. Once the rules are established, any person who questions them usually risks facing various types of threats. In many organisations, there is such a degree of fear of losing certain benefits or of being humiliated that numerous members resort to adopting a publicly conformist attitude whereby they avoid upsetting the status quo, even though their hearts might be tormented by countless doubts.

Over time, several groups pride themselves on being better than others. In some cases, a group can become so exclusive that any prospective new members are scrutinised very carefully prior to being allowed to join the organisation. Such behaviour leads to an us-versus-them mentality. It is hard to consider the latter as particularly beneficial to society because it usually encourages the creation of numerous stereotypes about all those people who do not belong to the same organisation. Furthermore, the division of human beings between those who are "with us" and those who are "against us" could also be said to contribute to a shocking degree of indifference towards all those who are perceived as outsiders.


Building Bridges

The world is made up of countless organisations. Although some are more inclusive than others, even those that stress the importance of peace and love in the world can generally be fairly hostile towards certain individuals. The us-versus-them mentality could still be witnessed in such organisations.

If one had to look at, say, various Evangelical Christian organisations, even if many of them might be working hard to combat various social problems such as drug addiction or alcoholism, most of these groups can be extremely harsh when it comes to anyone who does not express an interest in sharing their beliefs. Just to mention one example, a typical Evangelical Christian could easily say that since an atheist refuses to believe in God, they will suffer for eternity in Hell.

On the basis of what I have read about Jesus and in the light of how the Church was defined at the beginning of this article, the world would be a much better place if people tried to build bridges rather than burn them as a result of ignorance, fear or insecurity. If I am a true follower of Jesus, I must consider all other human beings as my brothers and sisters. I cannot see much love coming out of withdrawing love from other people simply because they are Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and so on.


The Importance of Love

As atheism and certain lifestyles appear to become increasingly popular in many parts of the Western world, simply labelling people as sinners or as infidels and threatening them with an eternity of suffering does not strike me as a response that is characterised by love. Furthermore, the effectiveness of such labels and fear tactics is highly questionable nowadays. In a world that is largely obsessed with instant gratification and with things that can be seen and measured, simply talking about one's "spiritual destination" following death is clearly not filling up the churches or leading to more people deciding to base their lives on the teachings of Jesus.

Moreover, I am always puzzled by how several individuals who describe themselves as Christian appear to feel comfortable when talking about the possibility of millions of human beings ending up in a place of eternal torment for one reason or another. I believe that true love can never rejoice at another person's suffering.

When a family member does something wrong, provided that there is true love, the other members might feel hurt or angry when contemplating the consequences of the act, but they would not desire any harm to befall that person. They would actually want to do everything possible to help the latter become a better individual. As far as I am concerned, if I were in Heaven, I would not be happy until I was sure that every other human brother and sister who has ever lived is also there to live as happily as possible, cured of all those things that drive people to harm themselves or others.

Gaddafi's Death

When I saw the first image of Gaddafi with blood splattered all over his face, I was shocked. When I watched the news footage of him dead only a few moments after his capture, I was disgusted. Although he was clearly hated by the rebels, I was hoping that in the case of capture, he would have been kept alive in order to be able to give his side of the story during a fair trial.

Some parties have argued that Gaddafi died as a result of cross-fire between his supporters and the rebels. I am more inclined to believe that he was executed.

I have been against capital punishment and also against the notion of revenge for as long as I can remember. Regardless of all the crimes that Gaddafi may have committed, I do not believe that he should have been beaten and killed. If it is true that human rights are universal, they cannot only be safeguarded for the people that we like.

Notwithstanding the ongoing demonisation of Gaddafi in many parts of the world, I was surprised to come across several pro-Gaddafi comments on YouTube that are rarely given any attention in the mainstream media. Some of them are featured below:

"Colonel Gaddafi, the world will miss you. You were an international symbol of defiance and a tower of strength in your support for the weak with your magnanimity. The wise will see through the mire of all the smear, lies and propaganda that the West has directed at you." - GlassSeagull

"I cried for this man I'm 26 yrs old male and I curse every single american and pro-american who supports their government a.k.a the biggest terrorist country on the planet EARTH!!! What did he do to deserve this? R.I.P. Gaddafi you are a HERO!!!!" - HulkHooligann

"you will go to heaven oh great king!!!!" - oaxacaismo

"They just kill body, not his soul....." - lelemdronik

"it is funny how the western media never interview the people who support Gaddafi. Always on the TV they have the people who hate him. When even we in the west KNOW he has loads of Libyan supporters." - girlznguitarz

Some food for thought!


Image

A Letter to Kikko

Dear Kikko,

When I woke up this morning, I was hoping you would jump onto the bed as usual so that I could stroke you while you purred. You used to make me laugh when you would raise your paw for me to continue stroking you whenever I stopped doing so. I looked at your small bed, but it was empty. I waited to hear your "good morning" cry, but there was only silence.

When I went to prepare my coffee, I saw your favourite food bowl. Do you remember how you would start jumping as soon as I touched it? Do you remember how happy you used to be whenever I gave you one of those special treats? I looked at the bowl, remembering how Wendy and I smiled joyfully as we saw you eating from it last Saturday. The bowl is still there, waiting for you...

When I returned home today, I did not find you waiting for me just behind the door. I was greeted by silence. A silence pregnant with pain.

I saw the water fountain we had bought for you. How you loved drinking from it! And all the small toys scattered all over the place!




I will start cooking soon, but you will not be there sitting next to me. You remember how naughty you were whenever I had some chicken on the table? Always trying to steal a piece?

I feel so bad that I was unable to do anything more to save you! When I took you to the vet yesterday afternoon, he told me that you were slipping away and that there was no real hope of survival. I hope that you still remember me next to you at the clinic, stroking your magnificent coat, as death edged closer to take you away from me. How I resisted the tears during those last few minutes! How I wanted to cry as I tried to imagine life without you!

I entered the vet's office with a cage, but I left with just the towel you were sleeping on. I still remember the expression of the man who had allowed me to enter before him due to the urgency of your condition. When he saw me leaving the office with the towel, he gave me a supporting hug.

As I walked back home, the tears just started streaming down my cheeks uncontrollably. I had not felt such a degree of pain since the day I had seen my mom's lifeless body at Boffa Hospital in 2006.

Dear Kikko, I hope that you are now happy in Heaven. I hope that you met your brother, Carlo, again and that you are now playing with each other. I hope that my mother was also there to stroke and comfort you; to tell you that we are missing you so much!!!!

I just pray that shortly after I take my last breath on Earth, you will be there to greet me. I pray that you will be purring there. And I pray that nothing will ever separate us again.

Camouflaged Dictatorships

Nowadays, it has become extremely fashionable to write and talk in favour of democracy. The Western media hardly ever stops showing interviews and pumping out articles about the importance of democracy. Dictatorships are frowned upon. And there appears to be a growing aversion towards any person or structure perceived as a symbol of authority.

Although I am in favour of societies whereby people are given the opportunity to bring about various positive changes through campaigns and other initiatives, I am quite perplexed by the general tendency to support democracy only within a strictly political framework. In other words, I cannot understand how the thousands of people who would even risk their lives to have the opportunity to say certain things seem to fail miserably at extending the notion of democracy to other settings such as the workplace.

Even though we live in the 21st century and even though many countries have adopted multi-party political systems, it is quite shocking to see how dictatorships - as a way of organising several human activities - are still extremely widespread in those countries that usually describe themselves as fully democratic. Taking the Western world as an example, if one goes beyond appearances and marketing propaganda, the typical workplace could easily be viewed as a dictatorial structure.

Before analysing the nature of the average workplace in a capitalist country, it might be a good idea to examine what usually occurs in the case of most dictatorships. In order to simplify matters and to avoid being too academic, it seems possible to say that there are usually four groups of people within a dictatorship.

The first group includes the leadership clan. The latter determines the objectives that need to be achieved by the masses and is the one that will benefit most from the current state of affairs. The leadership clan tends to shun bottom-up communication or consultation and any thought that does not fall in line with its aims is frequently perceived as a threat that must be neutralised.

The second group contains the enforcers. These are the people who will usually go to fairly extreme lengths to support as well as defend the leadership clan. These individuals will often attempt to emulate their leaders and resent any criticism. Their loyalty is not always motivated by the material rewards they receive from the leadership clan; the belief that they are important and loved by the leadership group could also forge very strong bonds even if few possessions are given to them.

The third group consists of the silent conformists. In a typical dictatorship, this would be the biggest group. It is made up of the hundreds of thousands of individuals who come to believe that any attempt to change things drastically is extremely dangerous and that it is, therefore, safer to go along with the flow and to do whatever is expected of oneself. Although many people within this group might secretly want a change or might even detest the leadership clan together with the enforcers, any criticism is normally expressed very discreetly.

The last group includes the rebels. These are the people who cannot endure various abuses and unfair pratices any longer. They are the individuals who will attempt to organise resistance movements or organisations with the hope of struggling against the dictatorship. If detected or identified, they could face terrible consequences. They are usually aware of such dangers, but they are strongly committed to their visions of a better future.

It is now time to apply the above to the typical capitalist workplace. To what extent could the latter be regarded as a dictatorship? Although it is said that an increasing number of companies is becoming less vertical when it comes to organisational structure, this does not mean that they have necessarily become more democratic. In many situations, regardless of whether there is one or more supervisors/managers, the entire workforce is there to achieve the objectives laid down by the shareholders (the leaders): to maximise profit and to minimise costs. In several large companies, the shareholders would rarely know much about their workforces and their interest in the well-being of the employees would usually be limited to productivity issues. In other words, many shareholders would often only show an interest in their employees provided that the money is rolling in. If an employee succumbs to, say, a mental illness, a shareholder would usually pay more attention to finding a quick replacement for that person rather than spending money to ensure that the employee receives the best possible treatment.

Given that the leaders are not always around, a network of enforcers is absolutely essential to ensure that the objectives are obtained and that any resistance is crushed. Within a workplace context, although the enforcers would normally be the managers or the supervisors, there is almost always a small group of individuals who believe that they are special within the organisation and who would provide information about the behaviour of any employees who might not be toeing the line.

Most employees normally play the role of silent conformists. They might grumble and complain about the company with other employees who share the same rank or who could even be a rung or two below them, but they would usually be too scared to rock the boat. These individuals tend to be terribly scared of unemployment given that the income they receive from the job might be supporting a family or going to several creditors. Their loyalty is based on fear and if a better opportunity appears, they would not be scared to move.

The rebels are typically described by the shareholders and by the enforcers as the pessimistic, negative employees. Although there are people who seem to be hell-bent on complaining against virtually everything, the rebels are not to be confused with them. In an average company, the rebel could be that employee who is tired of earning less than a person with fewer responsibilities. It could be the employee who does not want to end up working on week-ends or on public holidays as a result of the company's decision to assign the work that would ordinarily be done by three people to one person. It could be the person who is tired of the lack of respect shown by an autocratic manager.

In view of the above, it seems pretty obvious that most workplaces function as dictatorships. They are, however, camouflaged by all the fancy websites and management guru books that portray the typical capitalist workplace as a sort of college that serves to mould human beings in such ways that they become better citizens. The typical capitalist workplace might be generating more productive people, but that does not mean that more harmonious societies are being created. Sadly, in countless workplaces, the main focus is on the self - devoting more of one's life to earning more money for oneself without paying much attention to the welfare of other human beings who might not be contributing to one's wealth and happiness. In such an atmosphere, other people are regularly perceived as rivals and not as partners in creating a better world.

Many politicians might boast about how democratic their countries are, but this article clearly shows that multiple dictatorships still exist within those countries. Even though some people would say that an unhappy employee is free to move to another company, such a move is normally from one dictatorship to another.

Some people might say that contrary to political dictatorships, a typical employer would not throw someone into prison or torture them. Well, when an employee cannot really move quickly to another workplace, that person could feel imprisoned. Furthermore, the anguish felt by many employees when faced with certain conditions could be regarded as a form of torture.

When will there be a serious effort to put an end to all forms of oppression? When will there be more structures that allow human beings to live decently without having to compete against one another? When will the members of a society be regarded as equal partners rather than being divided according to whether they are employers or employees?

When Doctors Become Mercenaries

On Monday morning, I was not feeling well. I had been sneezing a great deal on Sunday, my nose was almost constantly dripping, and the back part of my mouth looked totally red. Following the usual company procedure, I sent a message to the person who takes care of sick leave at work to let him know that I was not going to the office that day. I was not sure whether they would have sent the company doctor and I, therefore, asked my personal doctor to come over for a quick visit.

The company doctor came to visit at around 1pm (just as I was about to start having lunch). She asked me about my condition and I gave her a very short history of my symptoms. She asked me whether I had any fever; when I told her that I did not have a working thermometer, she did not bother to check herself. She then proceeded to tap her fingers against my temples and against my throat, asking whether I felt any pain. I told her that I was not feeling any pain when she did that. I was then asked to open my mouth; she looked inside and informed me that there was no pus in my throat and that whatever I had was due to a virus. I knew that if one is suffering from a viral infection, there is no need to take antibiotics, but I just wanted her to confirm that I was not suffering from a bacterial infection. I asked her whether I needed any antibiotics and I also asked her to confirm whether the Day Nurse capsules that I was taking would be sufficient to treat my illness. She asserted that no antibiotics were necessary and that the Day Nurse pills would be fine together with some warm water with salt. She also advised me to drink much more water since I was dehydrated. According to her, I was suffering from URTI (Upper Respiratory Tract Infection).

My doctor rang the door bell around 10 minutes after she left. When he asked me about her diagnosis, he said that he still wanted to check for himself. When I told him that she did not bother to test whether I had fever, he took out his thermometer in order to check; he tried the thermometer twice and on both occasions, it was clear that I had a relatively high fever. When he looked into my mouth with his torch, he said that I HAD pus and that I was definitely suffering a bacterial infection. He prescribed, at least, one antibiotic product. When I told him about the company doctor's views, he just shook his head and said that such doctors are clearly only interested in sending people back to work as soon as possible. According to him, I was suffering from pharyngitis. He told me that if the company had any doubts about his diagnosis, they could contact him for any further details they required.

A similar story has probably occurred to many other people out there. It could be that several individuals just dismissed the matter as a disagreement between doctors or that they were too scared to challenge the company doctor's views. I have already come across the cases of two individuals who were advised to go back to work following the company doctor's visit. In both cases, the employees had also been seen by their personal doctors and had been certified as genuinely ill. As far as I am concerned, I do not believe that such cases should be taken lightly. Every medical doctor is trained to safeguard the patient's welfare; when a company's interests become more important than the patient's health, there is something seriously wrong.

I believe that whenever a company sends a doctor to check on someone's fitness to work, there is a clear conflict of interest. Such doctors are not being paid by the companies to treat the sick employees, but to send them back to work as soon as possible. If a company doctor allows various employees to spend many days recovering at home, it is very likely that the company director/s will suspect that the doctor is being too generous with the employees.

Why is the government not taking any action to prevent such unethical behaviour? It is my understanding that the government should only support the praiseworthy objectives of the medical profession. It should never allow medical doctors to become mercenaries.

If you have also experienced or witnessed a similar story, please share your observations on this blog...

A Few Thoughts about Money

Money has not always existed. There must have been a time when human beings that needed something could either obtain it on their own or ask another person/group of people to help them acquire it without having to think in terms of a price to be paid.

Times changed. Societies were formed. Money was invented. Various objects and services could no longer be acquired for free; they had to be purchased.

Nowadays, very few things that are necessary to live comfortably can be given or obtained freely. Food, clothes, a decent roof over one's head, education...several of these have to be bought. And if one does not have any money to acquire these things, that is where some very serious hardship could be expected.

There is no denying the fact that in order to live well, money is indispensable. And, of course, the more money one has, the more possible it becomes to enjoy many of the pleasurable things that life has to offer. Individuals who are millionaires can roam the world and divide their time in the many properties to their names whereas the millions of human beings who earn little more than a minimum wage are frequently cautioned to avoid thinking about certain pleasures since they must "live within their means". For the people who are earning little more than a minimum wage and who have absolutely no external support, what exactly does "living within their means" mean?

I have sometimes asked this question to people earning far more than me. Their answers were along the lines of "Well, if you are not earning a great deal of money, it is irresponsible to think about travelling, eating out, going to the cinema, buying good clothes, etc." Such thinking suggests that all those people who are barely earning enough to survive should - in spite of spending the same amount of time at work as several other individuals who are earning much more money - just focus on shutting themselves up at home and spend the little money they have on pure survival. And let's not fool ourselves here...with the prices of many essential items going up, it is sometimes very difficult to imagine how a monthly salary of, say, EUR 650 could be sufficient to even cover all the necessities that could crop up during a given month!

Nowadays, I frequently ask myself: why have so many societies embraced systems whereby various things and services that could be provided freely must be acquired following payment of a sum of money? Why am I obliged to spend money in order to nourish myself? Why am I obliged to spend money to have a decent roof over my head? Why must I spend money to buy enough clothes to keep me warm in winter?

When I talk about the sometimes shocking financial inequalities between several individuals, I am regularly told that the people who are extremely rich must have done something good to possess such wealth; that they must have worked very hard for the money. To me, this is quite debatable. There are countless individuals who are incredibly wealthy simply because they were born in very rich families. Other extremely rich people manage to build an empire for themselves by using the labour of other human beings to generate the wealth, but then keep most of the proceeds to themselves. Of course, there are also many people who are incredibly wealthy as a result of engaging in several criminal activities such as drug trafficking.

When talking about the huge gaps between salaries, I am often told that the market is the master of such matters. To give a simple example, waiters tend to be far less paid than, say, medical doctors because the labour market has a far greater supply of waiters than of doctors and waiters are, therefore, less "valuable" than doctors. Thus, if a typical waiter would like to live an average medical doctor's lifestyle, they would probably need to think about how they could sustain themselves for several years until they are able to graduate as a doctor. But what if someone really likes being a waiter and has no interest in medicine? Must the waiter be constrained to spend the rest of their life deprived of various comforts simply because the market rules that waiters should not be paid as much as people working in many other professions? To me, this type of unquestioning worship of the market is terribly disturbing.

I believe that we should try to imagine - even if only for a few minutes - a world without money. A world where human beings can be happy without needing to spend a penny to achieve that happiness. A world where people are not valued according to how much profit they could generate, but where they are regarded as equally deserving of the many comforts that life has to offer. What is so wrong with such a world? Why do so many people keep putting up one obstacle after another to prevent such a dream from coming true?

Perhaps we should remember that the world and all its resources once belonged to the entire human species. Huge tracts of land never had anyone's name written on them. When apples and oranges grew on thousands of trees, they never had any price tags stuck to them. Countless things were available to all and they were free.

Mistakes

Mistakes happen all the time. Thousands occur every month, every week, every day...Not all mistakes, however, have the same consequences. In several cases, the damage caused can easily be corrected via a simple procedure. For example, if a name is written incorrectly, it does not take more than a few seconds to rewrite it correctly. There are, on the other hand, many mistakes that create a great deal of damage or harm. Such errors are rarely, if ever, easy to deal with.

If a mistake is defined as an act that should not have taken place, countless acts could come to mind. The cashier who gave back the wrong amount of change to a client, the lawyer who did not provide good advice, the accountant that did not check the accuracy of the amounts shown on certain reports, the surgeon who made an error that killed a patient, the person who murdered another human being following an argument...

I think that every mistake has a two-fold impact. More specifically, a mistake is expected to affect the individual who made it and the person/s that suffered as a consequence of the error. Needless to say, the greater the mistake, the more worrying the effects.

One thing that perplexes and even disturbs me is the way that most societies react to people who make certain mistakes. Although it is frequently said that to err is human and even though new studies keep shedding more light about the fallibility of human beings, many societies react to several errors in a totally merciless way. Granted, when we read about people who broke into the homes of others to steal things or when we read about some doctor who made a fatal error, it is quite understandable to feel a certain degree of anger and fear. Such news tend to make people wonder: what if something like that had happened to me? Or to one of my loved ones?

Although I can understand the fear and anger that affects people who have suffered as a result of another person's mistake, I surely do not support the belief that the wrong-doer's life should be destroyed as a consequence of the error. As long as human beings are not changed in a biochemical way, people will continue making countless mistakes that are only made possible because of the way they are.

Any person who suffers as a result of a mistake should be helped. Yet, I believe that society should also help the individual who made the mistake. Whether the help given consists of psychotherapy or some other form of assistance, this should definitely be the preferred option rather than inflicting pain on another human being that requires help to avoid erring again.

Eric Cropp's story is a clear reminder of why things should change when it comes to mistakes. According to an article that appeared on USA Today, "Born in February 2004, Emily was diagnosed with a curable form of cancer when she was 18 months old. She underwent surgeries and four rounds of chemotherapy to eradicate the tumor growing from the base of her spine. The treatment worked, and Emily was expected to go home disease-free just after her second birthday. Her parents planned a Disney World celebration trip with Emily and her older brother and sister. Instead, Emily awoke crying on Feb. 28, grabbing her head in pain and vomiting. She died three days later. An Ohio pharmacy board investigation showed that pharmacy technician Katherine Dudash had made a tragic error. According to a notarized statement Dudash wrote for the board, she prepared Emily's chemotherapy bag with a 23.4% saline solution, 26 times the 0.9% normally used. Pharmacist Eric Cropp didn't catch the mistake. The board revoked his license last year over the incident and a string of later errors. In August, an Ohio grand jury indicted Cropp on charges of reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter 'in the death of Emily Jerry'".

Apart from having spent 6 months in prison, Mr Cropp was also stripped of his warrant to work as a pharmacist. Is this a healthy way to deal with mistakes? What good came out of Mr Cropp's imprisonment and the fact that - to date - he is still unemployed?

I will conclude with an anonymous comment that was left following an Internet post regarding Mr Cropp's case: "I am a retail pharmacist in New Jersey and have made my share of mistakes always to realize them later and follow-up immediately on them. This is almost always due to over-burden. So it just saddens me that an over-worked pharmacist made such a grave mistake unintentionally and is now paying so dearly for it that he has lost a means of livelihood. The law should understand that pharmacists are over-worked and instead of punishing one pharmacist for it, should ensure that all pharmacies have adequate help to sustain the pharmacy. I hope for the best for pharmacist throughout the States and for the profession of pharmacy."

What if you had committed a similar mistake? How would you like to be treated after making such an error?

Workers' Party of Korea

Next Sunday represents the 65th anniversary of the founding of the Workers' Party of Korea by Kim Il Sung. To many people who do not know much or are badly misinformed about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), this event might not mean much. Millions of DPRK citizens and their friends will, however, be celebrating this event.

Sadly, a reading of countless articles penned by many Western journalists about the DPRK suggests that such individuals have either never had any friends living in that country or they have never really bothered to take a good look at that part of the world often referred to as "North Korea". It could be that since those journalists have grown up in capitalist societies, they could find it quite hard to understand a society that tries to choose a different road. A socialist pathway leading to communism.

One of the things many people fail to understand about the DPRK is the organisation of society as a family. In such a society, the country's leader is regarded as a father and the Workers' Party of Korea is normally referred to as the "mother party". Indeed, in an article entitled "Mother Party" published in the magazine Korea Today, Ri Kyong Hui said that "The WPK takes responsibility and care for the people's destiny" (10, Juche 97 [2008], p. 2). The same article adds that "The DPRK government effected the universal free medical care system, when it was at war with the United States - a sure sign of its sense of responsibility for the people's health. The following universal free education system introduced in the late 1950s realized the hope of the people to study to their hearts' content free of charge. In 1974 the taxation system was abolished, and they have lived happily in the houses which the state allocated to them free, and they have no idea of the word of 'tax'" (p. 3).

More light could be shed on how life in the DPRK is organised by reading Kim Jong Il's works. In Socialism Is A Science (1994), he wrote "In our country, everyone regards and supports the leader as they would their own father. They trust and follow the Party, regarding its embrace as that of their own mother. The leader, the Party and the people form one socio-political organism, and share the same destiny. The whole of society overflows with communist morality. For instance, one devotes one's own life without hesitation to save one's revolutionary comrade from danger, and young men and women become life companions of honourably disabled soldiers and take warm care of orphans and old people without support, as they would their own relations. This is a proud result of the benevolent politics of our Party" (p. 31).

There are many other stories that reveal the care exhibited by the WPK. The aforementioned issue of Korea Today included an interesting article by Professor Kang Yong Ho, a researcher at the Kim Chaek University of Technology. This researcher spent the first few years of his life in Japan. Sometime around 1960, he was able to move to the DPRK with his wife and daughter. He wrote that "The day after our arrival home, an official sent for me. At the first glance he looked like a good man. He gave me two sheets of paper. One was a certificate of my appointment as a researcher of the Academy of Sciences, and the other was a certificate of my ownership of a good dwelling house. I looked at the official dubiously, and he said: 'Now you will be able to realize your hope to your heart's content under the embrace of the Workers' Party of Korea. You work as best as you can. And if you have any problem in your life and work, you may call on me at any time'" (p. 9).

In many other countries, millions of people do not feel that there is an organisation such as the WPK that acts as a mother to them. Instead of being made to feel important and part of a community, countless individuals in such countries are often left to fend for themselves. The lack of care and concern shown for millions of human beings is easily seen when one walks through various cities and counts the number of homeless people living in the streets. I still clearly remember how horrible it felt to walk through a part of Madrid littered with people sleeping on carton boxes during the winter season. No genuinely caring government should ever accept to have any of its citizens living without a decent roof over their head!

It is also important to remember that the WPK is doing its utmost to continue improving the standard of living of the people in the DPRK in spite of the many sanctions that are intended at sabotaging the socialist society chosen by millions of Koreans. United with their leader and guided by the WPK, the popular masses have resisted the attempts of various governments to replace socialism with neoliberalism.

Hopefully, the points mentioned above will be taken into consideration before another article is written by a Western journalist about the DPRK. By doing so, the readers would be able to obtain a better understanding of life in the DPRK.


Image

The Need for Socialist Communes

I am really sick and tired of the present-day obsession with competition and individualism! On a daily basis, we are exposed to countless TV shows that do little more than exhibit one person trying to outsmart or shine more than one or more other individuals. The more brutal the competition and the greater the humiliation for the losing party/parties, the more attention is often given to the show. Several magazines follow a similar pattern - their covers do not normally feature a group of people that have done something positive for society. They usually prefer to show a couple whose marriage has broken down or to demonise some drug user who went on to commit a string of crimes.

When it comes to numerous workplaces, the degree of competition and individualism that pervades them makes it extremely difficult to develop genuine and lasting friendships. Considering that the average human being spends most of his adult life at work, it is quite sad to look back at the amount of time spent with other people and to still be unable to count many friends among that crowd.

Furthermore, it seems that an increasingly larger number of people are dedicating more time than ever before to studying after work in order to add more marketable skills to their CVs. Of course, if one spends a minimum of 8 hours at work and then an extra 2 hours attending some course or studying at home, there is not much time left to be with family and/or friends. For those people who do not have family or friends, the amount of time eaten up by work and study makes it fairly difficult to focus on building new relationships.

Some individuals might argue that communications technology has made it much easier for people to make friends. I would say that such technology has definitely made it easier to connect with many people all over the world, but the technology itself cannot replace the will to spend time and to share various experiences with other human beings. Taking Facebook as an example, it is possible to have over a thousand individuals tagged as "friends", but how many of those people would really qualify as true friends? How many of them know what you like to eat and drink when you go out? How many of them know what type of music you enjoy listening to? How many of them know what dreams you have for the future? How many of them would rush to visit you in hospital if you ended up there following major surgery?

Although various social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter allow people to share many of their thoughts throughout the day, a status update is often less than the tip of an iceberg in terms of trying to get to know a person. If I say that I am feeling tired on Facebook, this does not shed any light on some of my worst fears.

Whilst many people out there might be aware of which book we are currently reading or which movie we have just watched, this does not mean that all those individuals are committed to preserving a genuine friendship with us. Thus, when some people ask themselves "how many true friends do I really have?", they might feel a strong kick in the stomach as they find it hard to count the number of people who would provide some material and/or psychological help in times of need. When this happens, it is quite inevitable for several individuals to feel very lonely.

Loneliness. The social networking sites are great at trying to disguise this phenomenon. Loneliness is, however, very real and its effects should not be underestimated. Sadly, thousands of Euros/Dollars are spent every week on countless substances such as alcohol in an attempt to drown the pain that often accompanies loneliness.

There are many people who try to combat or to prevent loneliness by joining a religious organisation. This might have worked in the past, when several individuals were scared of questioning certain beliefs, but scientific thinking has become so strong these days that it is extremely difficult for many people to do or to believe something simply because it was written in a book many centuries ago. Granted, there are many positive things associated with the teachings of Jesus, but most religious organisations will not stop at those teachings; they will often also require their members to do certain things or to avoid countless behaviours which were never discussed by Jesus!

Another big problem that I see with most religious organisations is that they are way too judgemental. Many of them appear to be extremely eager to list the types of people that will never go to Heaven. A good number of them also use Hell in order to threaten people to believe; if you do not believe what I am telling you, you will spend eternity suffering in Hell! Isn't that horrible??? In a world where so many secular organisations are now talking about rehabilitation and about giving a wrong-doer another chance, the concept of eternal damnation looks totally absurd to me.

The main question that I would like to ask is this: if various religious organisations allow their members to live together, why can't there be secular ones that allow their members to do the same thing? Imagine how nice it would be to have socialist communes whereby the individuals living together share the same secular ideals and do not need to spend hours praying or reciting the rosary or memorising parts of the Old Testament! The people living together in this way would all contribute a share of their income to cover the commune's monthly expenses. Furthermore, if one of the commune's members falls ill or ends up unemployed, he/she would receive all the care and help that true socialists should give to those in need. The motto of these communes could be "All for one, one for all!"

The commune could consist of a block of apartments or a large house with many spacious rooms. All the members would be subject to a set of rules, but these rules would be motivated by the safeguarding of the community's welfare; they would not be based on something that must be believed simply because it was written by some "prophet" who lived many centuries ago!

So, could anyone tell me when the first socialist commune is going to be set up in Malta???

Forgiveness of One's Enemies

As I was surfing the Internet today, I came across the story of a certain Fr Juan Alsina. The latter was a Spanish Catholic priest who spent the last years of his life working in Chile.

Like many other Catholic priests working in Latin America during the late 1960s/early 1970s, Fr Alsina was very dedicated to improving the welfare of the hundreds of poor people that he met during his missionary work. During those times, several Catholic priests did not shy away from criticising the devastating impact of the capitalist economic model on countless communities.

Instead of being showered with praise, Fr Alsina was punished for his noble deeds. A few days after the Pinochet coup in September 1973, he was arrested and taken to a bridge for execution. Just before he was shot, he told the 18-year-old soldier who was going to kill him, "Please do not blindfold me...shoot me as you stand in front of me because I want to see you as I forgive you!"

Fr Alsina was only 31 years old when he was killed.

Rebels Against A Specific Lifestyle?

When talking about a typical adult's lifestyle, it could be said that most societies in the world clearly follow a specific model. The latter appears to be characterised by the following steps: having terminated one's full-time education (by choice or by necessity), a person is normally compelled to look for a job. Upon finding a job, an individual is usually expected to dedicate most of one's waking hours to that occupation throughout most days of the year. For millions of people, the cycle of waking up, getting ready, working, going back home, resting for a couple of hours, sleeping, and then repeating everything all over again is repeated for several decades. Given the fact that millions of human beings are constrained to borrow money in order to acquire a number of basic commodities, it is not surprising to see many people spending most of their lives trying to pursue freedom from debt.

Faced with the cycle mentioned above, it seems that most individuals just go along with the flow. These are the people who surrender a big chunk of their time on most days of the week so that they can earn enough money to survive and to enjoy some of the good things that life has to offer. These are the people who might have a number of jobs during a period of 30 or so years. They are the ones who believe that short of a "lucky exit", it is virtually impossible to think of an alternative lifestyle.

Although there are various types of jobs these days, it is difficult to regard the capitalist working culture that is encouraged in the majority of workplaces as the most socially beneficial one. In many private companies, there is cut-throat competition, a great deal of greed, and a shocking lack of concern for the general welfare of the employees. If an employee becomes ill for a relatively long period of time, instead of trying to think about ways of helping that person, it is not uncommon to hear many employees suggesting the need to get rid of such an "unproductive" individual in order to obtain a replacement. In countless private companies, nothing is more important than profit; whatever does not contribute to an increase of the bottom line should be eliminated or avoided. Several employers talk about "terminating" employees without showing too much discomfort.

Not all people feel able or willing to spend a good 30 or so years of their lives in such an atmosphere. Such individuals might believe that life is way too short to be spent on boasting about how much more efficient, smart, or productive one is compared to other fellow human beings. They might think that human beings were born free and that if a person wants to spend a year or two travelling and reading, one should be able to pursue such a lifestyle without the threat of starvation or homelessness. Such people might be very willing to help build a better society that would be able to encourage the positive development of every human being, but without having to compete against other individuals or to be constrained to one area of activity for countless years. Perhaps they would like to be able to help by spending two months teaching, six months building a community centre, and a year providing first aid services to several people.

Since most people do not seem to enjoy questioning the status quo and prefer to go with the flow, there is a widespread tendency to view those individuals who dare to rebel against the predominant lifestyle as "lazy" or even as "crazy". The attempt to be different is squashed by various measures which make life for such people virtually impossible. The most popular threat is starvation - if you refuse to go with the flow, you will not be given any money by nobody so that you will eventually die of hunger. With no money, you will eventually end up without any water and electricity, and perhaps even homeless.

I believe that it is far too simplistic to label all those people who decide that they do not want to form part of the predominant culture as lazy. Furthermore, even if they were acting in a "lazy way", something must have triggered such behaviour in the first place. Sadly, this issue does not seem to receive much attention during discussions about "the lazy people who do not want to work".

Throughout my life, I have come across some of these rebels. One of them had been working in a fairly senior position for many years before he decided that he no longer wanted to pursue such a lifestyle. Shortly after he quit, I asked him whether he was thinking of another job; his reply was, "I want to take a break...I want to spend some time without being bossed around by other people!" Of course, his decision had fairly predictable consequences. After a few months, his savings ran out and he started facing several problems to pay the bills, feed himself, and so on. In spite of all these hardships, he has still not returned to his former lifestyle.

Do you know any similar rebels? Have you ever talked to them in order to understand their motivations? Do you think that such people are just lazy and that they deserve all the troubles they face?

Trapped

I have just finished reading an extremely interesting and entertaining book called Waiter Rant by Steve Dublanica. I loved the way in which the author managed to fuse descriptions of events at work with a number of reflections related to various issues such as immigration, substance abuse, and so on.

As I was reading this book, one of the issues that really struck me was the author’s feeling of being trapped at work. When he started working as a waiter at the age of 31, Dublanica wrote that the restaurant job was meant to be a short-term option until he moved on to something else. The problem is that as he faced a constant struggle to survive (payment of rent and other bills), quitting or moving to a new type of job was far easier said than done. Indeed, Dublanica ended up working as a waiter for several years until he managed to turn to writing as his main occupation.

Although the author eventually managed to switch to something he considered as more fulfilling, I strongly believe that the transition to a more rewarding activity is still a dream for millions of people around the world. More specifically, the feeling of entrapment mentioned by him seems to be shared by countless individuals who are presently engaged in a particular activity in an attempt to survive, but who would love to move to another occupation that is perceived by them as more rewarding economically as well as psychologically. The following post probably mirrors the despair of many individuals who are in such a situation:

"I'm married, have 2 kids and have been experiencing a debilitating depression recently. I feel my only purpose in life is to make money to support my family. I hate my job and feel stuck there, since I don't think I can get another job that pays as well and my wife doesn't work, so I'm the sole breadwinner. I know that I'll never be able to retire, and I will just work until I die. This situation leaves me very depressed and feeling trapped with no hope and no options.

I've become obsessed with money, figuring that if I can find ways to make money outside of work I might have a chance to retire someday. I tried the stock market and found it to be extremely stressful and it took over my entire existence. (I just lost $6200 this week day trading) The stock market was my last hope for a better life and I failed again. I feel like I'm a failure at everything, not performing well at work, losing my hard earned money by gambling in the market.

I come home completely exhausted from work and stressed out. I've lost interest in many things I used to enjoy. I have some better days, but often the bad days are so overwhelming they are nearly debilitating. There are many days I ignore the family and get drunk to escape from the pain of reality. I'm destroying my family in the process, the only reason I live, and I know that I need to change my behavior."

When I was working as a language teacher in Spain , I often felt trapped. Although I loved teaching, the job conditions I had were far from satisfactory. Similar to many waiters, I was paid on an hourly basis and there was no vacation or sick leave. There were several times when I dragged myself to work in spite of being sick so that I could earn some extra money to cover my expenses. It was quite difficult to adapt to a reality whereby it was hardly ever possible to forecast the amount of money I would be earning at the end of each month. Faced with such a lack of stability, it was virtually impossible to make various plans, such as a holiday trip to another country.

Apart from the irregularity of my monthly income, I also had to deal with odd working times. Since many students could only attend a language class following regular working hours, I often had to teach from, say, 6PM until 7:30PM. There were times when I returned home after 9PM! Given the type of students that I found, flexibility was a must. If a student was only available for a couple of hours on a Sunday afternoon, it was a matter of either accepting and earning an extra EUR 30 or losing out on such much-needed money. If I had turned certain students down because of the class times, I am pretty sure that my income would have shrunk to the point of being unable to cover all my monthly expenses!

Desperate to find something more stable, I started exploring a number of courses that I could pursue in order to improve my general life situation. There was a time when I toyed with the idea of studying IT. I then thought about studying nursing. There appeared to be an almost constant demand for IT professionals and for nurses. In both cases, the main problem was that the courses were held at times when I would normally be teaching. Attending a course to improve myself was, therefore, impossible. To make matters worse, most of the courses were too expensive for me! In the absence of any additional financial help, there was no way that I could quit teaching to spend a couple of years as a full-time student.

I eventually managed to move to something more stable. I am, however, pretty sure that there are still countless individuals out there who are still trapped; people who are still struggling to make their dreams come true. As one year after another goes by for such people, I admire their resilience; their belief in a better future.

To conclude, I would like to ask about how the governments of various countries are presently trying to help all those individuals who feel trapped, who would like to improve themselves, but who cannot presently do so because of financial issues. Are professional educational courses being offered to people who are constrained to spend from, at least, 8AM to 5PM working to earn enough money to pay the rent or a mortgage? Or are those courses only available to people who can afford to avoid working for a number of years? If ,say, a 30-year-old customer service representative who has no family support would like to study Law at university, what options presently exist to help this person make his dream come true? Are there any schemes for those people who have absolutely no family support that would allow them to quit a job and to seek further training without the risk of starvation and/or homelessness? A society that talks about equal opportunities and then fails to provide them should take a good look at itself and attempt to improve things so that no person is left behind. So that whoever is currently trapped can be freed.

Image

Criticism and the Diversity of Opinions

It seems that many people praise the ability to criticise other persons. Indeed, if one had to take a look at the tabloids or watch a number of talk shows on TV, they would know very well what I am talking about. No action performed by a human being appears to be immune from criticism. No matter what one says or does, there will probably always be, at least, someone willing to engage in some critical activity. Is this good? Is it bad? Aren't we often told that we should promote the diversity of opinions?

This is not an easy topic to discuss. Each question could easily invite countless other questions. I would, however, like to attempt to go beyond the many cliches that are associated with the issue of criticism. In order to avoid any confusion, I would like to point out that I am linking critical activity to differences of opinion since it is very common for people who hold a particular set of beliefs to criticise any ideas which go against it.

Taking a look at the world's history, it is quite easy to identify how different views triggered so many terrible wars and persecutions. Millions of people have fought and died because of differences related to their religious and/or political beliefs.

At this stage, one of the questions in my mind is: if two people can only agree to disagree and are almost constantly criticising each other, does this necessarily mean that they must fight to the death? Of course not! When faced with such a situation, it is extremely important to exercise - first and foremost - tolerance. To me, tolerance means being able to accept that another person has a different view. I would, however, go a step further - tolerance should not just be limited to accepting that there are differences in opinions or beliefs; it should also trigger an attempt to understand why the other person views a particular issue differently. Such an understanding could shed light on why a person might find it so hard to change their mind about a specific topic.

There is little doubt that the acceptance of diversity and the attempt to understand its origins do not necessarily lead to any significant positive changes. To mention just one example, it seems quite unlikely that certain religious people who strongly believe that a drunkard will spend eternity in Hell would change their views following an acceptance of diversity and an understanding of why the drunkard ended up in such a state.

Although the diversity of opinions or beliefs has often led to social disharmony, a few words must be devoted to the distinction between positive and negative criticism. The former is still triggered by the existence of a different opinion, but it is usually said that such criticism is aimed at helping the other person to improve. Negative criticism, on the other hand, is normally associated with the attempt to hurt another person; to attack their self-esteem. If a person keeps failing an exam, it is one thing to tell that person "Your current studying strategies need to be revised since they are not leading to success", but it is something quite different to tell that person "Give up studying because your repeated failures only serve to show that you are dumb!"

In a world characterised by individuals who do not have a bird's-eye view of all the variables that exist in the universe and of how such variables interact with one another, a debate that is carried out with an emphasis on positive criticism could lead to great improvements and/or a fuller understanding of a number of issues. Given such a state of affairs, it would not be realistic to imagine resolving various problems without a certain amount of debates.

Sadly, there are still many times when debating is completely frowned upon. The avoidance of any type of debate opens the door to dogmatic, top-down communication that strongly resents ever being challenged or questioned. It appears that this tends to occur within several business, religious, and political organisations. When this happens, the consequences could be devastating.

If one had to focus on numerous religious organisations, it would not be difficult to notice how almost every attempt to question a core belief by someone is frequently regarded as "the work of Satan"!!! Whenever I hear that line, I immediately feel like telling the person who describes any type of questioning as Satanic the following words: "How do you really know that Satan exists? And please don't tell me that you know because you say that the Holy Spirit whispered it to you in your head!!!"

With reference to the Roman Catholic Church, more and more cracks are appearing in the walls of this organisation. The ban on female priests, the ban on contraception, the imposition of celibacy, the condemnation of homosexual behaviour...all these issues are being increasingly questioned by the members of this Church. A number of priests are also criticising certain positions that the Church still supports!

If one turns - to mention another example - to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, it is possible to find some extremely sad stories about the pain that various members had to face because of the Church's teachings about homosexuality. By avoiding any questioning and insisting that it is right in condemning homosexual behaviour as something that goes against God's Plan, several individuals have endured horrendous amounts of suffering. A few have also committed suicide.

When it comes to political parties, many members seem to be afraid of questioning certain positions because they do not wish to be regarded as "traitors" or as "disloyal". For those people whose party membership gives them a sense of belonging, it can be very difficult to risk expulsion as a result of taking a position that goes against a party position. Consequently, a party member might end up preaching one thing in order to avoid trouble, but privately believe the opposite thing. Such situations could clearly be avoided if a political party could learn how to manage diversity in better ways.

What about the harsh criticism that is often witnessed in multi-party societies? Although one party might say that its critique is aimed at improving the country, there seems to be little doubt that the tone that is frequently used in debates between political parties is very harsh. Instead of focusing on ideas and issues, it is specific individuals who are often targeted by a rival party. In a society that tends to adore competition, such bashing between parties is usually considered as totally acceptable. If there is cut-throat competition at work, in schools, at home, why should the political arena be left untouched? The sad thing is that the social bitterness that is created as one party lashes out at the other is dressed up as "democracy at work". At this stage, an interesting question could be: does the existence of numerous political parties really lead to a greater degree of social harmony? Couldn't we try to discover better ways of working together instead of creating tribes to fight each other? Does democracy necessarily require a political party for every different opinion that one might have?

One final question: will there ever be a time when all people can live peacefully together without any disagreements? Without any bitter criticism or terrible clashes? Who knows?

All I can say right now is that as long as people continue to disagree on one thing or another, criticism will continue to exist. My hope is that any debate or any criticism could be utilised for exclusively positive purposes.



Image

Religious Organisations - To Join or Not to Join?

Every now and then, I end up discussing the pros and cons of belonging to a religious organisation. I had one such conversation earlier on today.

I was talking to one of my colleagues about this person who belongs to a Neocatechumenal group. This individual should be getting married sometime next year. When asked about how many children he would like to have, his reply was along the lines of "As many as God decides to give us..." To my knowledge, members of such groups are against the use of any contraceptives. I said that this person must be earning a good salary in order to afford having several children! My colleague then told me that money is not such an issue for these people since they have an extremely effective support network. In other words, as long as one belongs to one of these groups, some sort of help - material or otherwise - should always be available. This colleague added that an aunt of hers who also belongs to the same type of group had ten children and that the family received a great deal of help from other group members.

In a world increasingly characterised by governments that do not show much care towards their citizens, one could say that numerous religious groups are managing to recruit several members as they provide the affection and help that is not being given by the State or by other secular organisations. Faced by issues such as poor job security, low wages, and inadequate housing conditions, it is plausible to argue that many people would be interested in belonging to an organisation that is aimed at improving one's position in life.

Sadly, many secular organisations that I have belonged to or witnessed have fallen very short of providing the type of care and help that is frequently seen among members of a religious organisation. Referring to my own experience within a secular organisation in Malta, I still clearly remember how the members would meet up to discuss group tasks without barely knowing much about one another. Granted, if the group was set up to achieve certain tangible objectives, there must be something to indicate progress, but there is no reason to justify why the members of a voluntary organisation should treat each other in a relatively cold way. With reference to the same organisation, I remember that no social events would ever be organised and most of the contact between the members was limited to a discussion or planning of specific projects.

As time went by, my interest in belonging to such an organisation waned. No matter how interesting the projects were, it felt horrible to spend time with people who barely knew anything about me, who never asked me how I was, who showed very little warmth...

Having also attended the meetings of a number of religious organisations, I could clearly identify the difference between the atmosphere within a religious group and a non-religious one. Generally speaking, most of the people I met at several religious gatherings showed genuine interest in me. Furthermore, many of them would keep in touch and try to meet up regularly in order to do fun things together.

At this stage, one of the biggest questions I have is: why does it seem to be so difficult to come across a non-religious organisation whose members are seriously interested in each other's general welfare? Why is it that one could attend numerous meetings of a secular organisation and still feel very lonely?

Although some readers could think that I am presently arguing in favour of belonging to a religious organisation, I would like to correct that impression. It is true that joining a religious organisation could lead to several material and psychological benefits. No doubt about that. Yet, such benefits are rarely offered to people for free. There is usually a price to pay. And there are many occasions when this price might be way too high to accept.

Focusing on numerous Christian organisations, membership usually entails a totally dogmatic mindset vis-a-vis several issues. For instance, in order to become a member of such an organisation, it is normally essential to consider the Bible as the true word of God. Every line, every word must be interpreted literally. The attempt to challenge a part of the Bible could easily be regarded as "Satanic influence". Whenever one starts questioning certain parts of the Bible, that person is often advised to pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance. Yet, what happens if you pray and pray and the guidance never comes?

Apart from not being allowed to question anything about the Bible, most Christian organisations seem to enjoy adding many extra rules of their own. For example, in order to belong to one organisation, an individual could be obliged to deprive oneself of food for several hours once a month (fasting). This deprivation is supposed to bring spiritual enlightenment and gifts to one's life, but this is - of course - extremely subjective. Many other rules could exist and it is usually impossible to challenge them. Naturally, the more rules there are, the easier it becomes for a person to feel as though their freedom has been taken away from them.

Furthermore, the tendency to rely on something that was written or said by another person would normally prevent a fruitful debate about a particular topic. For example, if one were to start analysing a specific behaviour, a member of a Christian organisation would normally just check what the Bible says and immediately judge that behaviour as good or evil. I think that such an approach underestimates the complexity of being human and frustrates the attempt to understand many behaviours in a new way. For example, what good comes out of judging an alcoholic person as a sinner who will end up spending eternity in Hell unless he/she "repents"?

When I sometimes hear certain people quote various chunks from the Bible, I often think to myself: what if all the time devoted to memorising a text that was written in a totally different culture hundreds of years ago was devoted to scientific research? Imagine if the efforts to memorise the Bible or other "sacred texts" were focused on trying to find a cure for countless diseases or on improving several aspects of our lives.

To me, the idea of belonging to a religious organisation always triggers the same question: in order to enjoy feeling loved and cared for, must I go from being a very analytical and open-minded person to a completely dogmatic one? I really enjoy being in an organisation that cherishes human welfare and strives to build a better world characterised by love, but it is too difficult for me to be a member of a structure that has such goals, but which also reduces one's life to embracing a personality cult (spending hours just singing songs of worship) and to following several rules in a totally dogmatic way. I keep asking myself: why can't people unite to care about one another and to build a better world without having to invent so many rules that could either harm them (take fasting as an example) or that deprive them of numerous harmless freedoms (the freedom for a woman to become a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, for instance)?

Promotion to Supervisor

Last Tuesday I was promoted to the position of supervisor at work. Most of my work will still revolve around claims, but I will also be handling some underwriting activities.

I started working in insurance in late 2005. I spent a short time working for an insurance agency (handling hundreds of health insurance claims) and I then moved to an insurance broking/management firm. I joined the latter company as a trainee in 2006 and I have managed to climb my way up to the current position of supervisor in around 3.5 years.

Those Who Never Quit

I have always strongly admired those individuals who never quit. The ability of such people to keep struggling in spite of all the setbacks they encounter is extremely inspiring.

For a fairly long time, I have believed that Western society has a relatively low tolerance for failure. It seems that most people are expected to achieve success quite quickly and without encountering any major problems. Furthermore, the belief that human beings are "born good" in one area or another tends to fuel the expectation that success should come quite easily. This perception - which is unfortunately still fairly widespread - suggests that if you do not manage to "get it right" almost from the start, you should consider turning your attention to some other activity. Whoever has managed to get a glimpse of the countless reality-TV shows whereby several individuals are humiliated and labelled as "incompetent" or "untalented" by a panel of "judges" knows exactly what I am talking about.

Sadly, a society which projects false notions about success and which does not tolerate failure is expected to include many people who give up very easily when they encounter one or more setbacks. You failed your Physics exam? Well, perhaps you are "not so bright" when it comes to Spanish! Your marriage broke down? Well, perhaps you should never enter into any other relationship in the future! You have been diagnosed with a particularly rare medical condition? Well, perhaps you should just accept your "bad luck" and avoid complaining! Does any of this destructive talk sound familiar? Unfortunately, such negative messages are transmitted thousands of times a day in various parts of the world.

Although there are many people who quit relatively easily when faced with a problem, there are others who are determined to stand up over and over again following one or more nasty falls. The rest of this post focuses on some individuals who did not quit when confronted with various difficulties.

Many people have surely heard about Sir Anthony Hopkins and have watched several of his movies including the famous Silence of the Lambs. Fewer individuals, however, seem to be aware of the hardships faced by Mr Hopkins during the early stages of his life. In an interview published by the Mail Online site, he said the following: "I was called Dumbo, like the elephant, as a child because I couldn't understand things at school...My grandfather, my father's father, told my mother, 'Tony's got a big head, pity there's nothing in it, unlike Bobby [cousin] who is brilliant'...The teachers would slap me about the head...I was hauled before the headmaster, who said there was something wrong with me. My teacher twisted my ear till it broke and said, 'You are only fit to grease your father's bread tins,' because I didn't understand arithmetic."

The article went on to say that "For the young Hopkins, feelings of inadequacy continued throughout his teens. 'I felt like the village idiot because I couldn't do anything right. I worked at the Steel Company of Wales when I was 17. My job was to supply tools to the guys working the blast furnaces. I would look at the chits and I'd always choose the wrong thing, and the foreman would say to me, 'What the hell is the matter with you? Can't you do anything right?' He'd say, 'Go and make me a cup of tea.' Then, 'No. Don't even do that because you'll blow us all up.'"

Though Angie Baker did not become as popular as Anthony Hopkins, her story also deserves to be mentioned. As a young woman, Angie wanted to have a baby. As stated in an article published in Grazia magazine (15/03/2010), "I was in my early twenties when I got pregnant the first time" (p. 119). After a few weeks, she lost the baby as a result of a miscarriage. Although saddened by the event, Angie did not give up. She tried again. And again. Each pregnancy, however, kept ending in a miscarriage. The worst thing is that "the doctors kept saying there was nothing medically wrong" with her. After the tenth miscarriage, she underwent a number of tests at St Mary's Hospital in London. She left the hospital with no additional medical information as "again they found nothing". Although many other women might have given up on having a baby following so many miscarriages, Angie was determined to keep on trying. She eventually discovered Dr Hassan Shehata, a doctor who had carried out a lot of research about women who were suffering from recurrent miscarriages. Thanks to the doctor's desire to help such women, he managed to clarify the root of Angie's failed pregnancies. Furthermore, as a result of his treatment, Angie eventually managed to have her own baby. Angie Baker miscarried 18 times before she gave birth to a healthy baby girl.

Another story that deserves to be mentioned is the one of Emily Holden. According to an article that appeared in Glamour (April, 2010), "A horrific car accident...broke every bone in Emily Holden's face, blinded her in one eye and burst a lung" (p. 32). The 21-year-old girl has received a great deal of assistance from the Saving Faces Foundation. She is aware of the fact that she still requires further treatment, but she is very optimistic about her future. Indeed, Emily stated that "When I've recovered, I'll counsel other victims. I'll visit them in hospital to offer advice and guidance." (p. 32).

I am sure that there are many other stories out there of individuals who have never quit in spite of having been beaten down once, twice, three times...I will try to post more about them in future articles. If you are one of those individuals, I would be very glad to hear about your story. :)

The Rise of the Communist Party of Malta

Last Monday, the Times of Malta published an interesting article regarding the Maltese Communist Party. Although this party has been in existence since 1969, it never enjoyed the popular support that could easily be witnessed when talking about the country's two biggest political parties (the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party).

Although the Labour Party in Malta never embraced Marxist-Leninist principles, the Mintoff and Mifsud Bonnici administrations were clearly more leftist than the Sant and Muscat ones. During those times, the most prominent Labour Party representatives stressed the importance of doing things within an ideological context. Hence, if a measure was going to be implemented, it was fairly easy to fathom how such an action was intended to coincide with the party's ideological objectives. The speeches about the benefits of Socialism helped to distinguish the Labour Party from the Nationalist one. As stated above, the Labour Party was never a Communist organisation, but the discourse used by individuals such as Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici sometimes overlapped with that utilised by a number of Communists. By using this strategy, several Maltese people perceived the Labour Party as being sufficiently leftist and did not feel a strong need to move to another party that also talked about the fruits of Socialism.

With the introduction of Alfred Sant's New Labour strategies during the 1990s, there was a fairly evident desire to move away from the anti-capitalist rhetoric that was quite popular during the 1970s and the 1980s in order to embrace a more pro-capitalist stance towards various issues. Almost from the start, this change led to varying degrees of friction within the party. To many people, the key question was: if the Labour Party was planning to desert "the Socialist Cause", what really made it so different from the Nationalist one?

Over the years, the Labour Party developed into an organisation that would talk about social justice and about a number of topics frequently mentioned by leftist parties, but it would hardly ever specify how it seriously intended to remedy countless social ills. Furthermore, even though it was clear that numerous problems were being facilitated by the increasing penetration of capitalist practices in Malta, the bulk of the Labour Party politicians never dared to criticise this economic model. Once capitalism was embraced in the most dogmatic way, politics was reduced to a competition between who could be the best manager of a fundamentally capitalist society.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Communist Party of Malta went underground. Although it was never disbanded, it became largely inactive.

When it became clear that the Labour Party had become just another pro-capitalist organisation, several individuals started feeling as though the country lacked a political vehicle that could seriously challenge the capitalist model that formed the basis on which the Maltese economy was built.

Aware of this reality, the Communist Party of Malta started noticing a growing degree of interest in a party that was seriously interested in preserving and/or ensuring free education, health care, stable and decent employment, proper housing, and so on. Unlike the other huge parties, the Communist Party of Malta was not going to pay lip-service to workers' rights and then fail to review the country's appalling minimum wage.

More and more people are losing faith in Malta's two biggest parties. As such individuals feel that neither one of those parties is truly working hard enough to ensure that ALL people residing in Malta have a certain level of welfare, the Communist Party will continue to grow day by day...